Stojanovski v Stojanovski (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 558

Stojanovski v Stojanovski (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 558

The plaintiff's proposed motion was summarily dismissed because the Court had inherent power to control whether to entertain such an application and the plaintiff did not identify any material misapprehension of fact or law. Instead, he sought to use the motion as a backdoor method to reargue complex, carefully considered findings and reasoning in the principal judgment, which would impose undue cost and delay on the defendants and the Court before final orders and any appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure; Application for Review and Withdrawal or Variation of Findings and Reasons in a Published Judgment Before Entry of Final Orders / On the Papers; Consequential Orders After Principal Judgment
Outcome
Leave was granted to file the draft notice of motion, the motion was made returnable instanter and dismissed, with costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['summary Disposal' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'inherent Power of the Court' 'review of Reasons for Judgment Before Entry of Orders' 'abuse of Process' 'family Provision' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'succession and Family Provision'] ['summary Disposal' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'inherent Power of the Court' 'review of Reasons for Judgment Before Entry of Orders' 'abuse of Process' 'family Provision' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure; Application for Review and Withdrawal or Variation of Findings and Reasons in a Published Judgment Before Entry of Final Orders / On the Papers; Consequential Orders After Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should entertain the plaintiff's application for review and withdrawal or setting aside of findings and reasons in the principal judgment before final orders were made and entered." 'Whether the Court had inherent power to refuse leave to file, or summarily dismiss, a notice of motion seeking review of published reasons for judgment.' 'Whether the plaintiff identified any material misapprehension of fact or law justifying reopening, rather than seeking impermissibly to reargue his case.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's proposed motion was summarily dismissed because the Court had inherent power to control whether to entertain such an application and the plaintiff did not identify any material misapprehension of fact or law. Instead, he sought to use the motion as a backdoor method to reargue complex, carefully considered findings and reasoning in the principal judgment, which would impose undue cost and delay on the defendants and the Court before final orders and any appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave was granted to file the draft notice of motion, the motion was made returnable instanter and dismissed, with costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["Grant leave to the plaintiff to file in court the draft notice of motion attached to the email from the plaintiff's solicitor to the associate to Robb J dated 8 April 2020." 'Order that the notice of motion be returnable instanter.' "Dismiss the plaintiff's notice of motion." 'Reserve costs.']